The consumer’s issue:
The consumer purchased a brand-new hatchback in November 2023 for around £25,000 from a franchise dealership. Approximately four months after taking delivery, they noticed between 30 and 40 small white chips and scratches on the vehicle’s paintwork, primarily affecting the front areas.
The issue was reported to the supplying dealership, which concluded that the damage was consistent with stone chipping from normal use. The consumer, however, obtained an independent assessment which suggested there may be a defect in the paint finish. This report also noted that a scratch could be made on the vehicle’s surface using a fingernail, raising concerns about the durability of the paintwork.
As a resolution, the consumer was seeking either a full respray of the vehicle or a replacement vehicle, on the basis that the paintwork was not of satisfactory quality.
The case outcome:
The Motor Ombudsman adjudicator reviewed the evidence submitted by both parties, including two independent inspection reports. The case was considered under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (“CRA”), which requires that a vehicle be of satisfactory quality, fit for purpose, and as described.
It was not in dispute that the paint damage occurred after delivery. Both the dealership and an independent manufacturer-approved paint specialist concluded that the damage was consistent with external factors, such as stone chips sustained through normal driving conditions, rather than a manufacturing defect.
Whilst the consumer’s independently commissioned report suggested there may have been a flaw in the paint finish, this was noted to be a preliminary opinion and recommended further inspection by a manufacturer-approved expert. This subsequent inspection found no evidence of a defect in the paintwork.
The adjudicator therefore found that, on the balance of probabilities, the damage to the vehicle’s paintwork was caused by external influences and general wear and tear, rather than an inherent fault present at the point of delivery.
In relation to the consumer’s concern regarding the ability to scratch the paintwork with a fingernail, it was noted that vehicle paint is not necessarily designed to be resistant to concentrated abrasive force. The adjudicator determined that this characteristic did not fall outside the expectations of a reasonable person, and did not indicate that the vehicle was of unsatisfactory quality.
As a result, the adjudicator concluded that the vehicle met the standard of satisfactory quality under the CRA, and there had been no breach of the Motor Industry Code of Practice for Vehicle Sales, meaning the complaint was not upheld in the consumer’s favour.
Conclusion:
Based on the available evidence, the adjudicator did not recommend that the business provide a repair, replacement, or any other remedy, as no breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 or the Code of Practice had been established.
